Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senators Wrangle Over Immigration Bill ('border security-first approach' voted down 55-40)
AP on Yahoo ^ | 5/16/06 | David Espo - ap

Posted on 05/16/2006 10:30:52 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON - The Senate rejected a call Tuesday to secure the nation's borders before tackling other immigration-related concerns such as citizenship for millions of men and women in the country illegally, a victory for President Bush and supporters of a comprehensive approach to a volatile election-year issue.

The vote was 55-40 against a proposal by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga, who said that anything less than a border security-first approach amounted to "a wink and a nod one more time to those who would come here" unlawfully.

Republican and Democratic supporters of the sweeping Senate bill said Isakson's approach would be self-defeating and derail the approach that Bush backed in Monday night's prime time speech from the Oval Office. "We have to have a comprehensive approach if we're going to gain control of the borders," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.

Eager to blunt any political fallout from opposing Isakson's proposal, the bill's sponsors countered with an alternative of their own. Backed by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., it said immigration changes envisioned in the legislation could proceed if the president declared they were in the national security interests of the United States.

The Senate cast its first votes on the immigration bill as Bush renewed his call for Congress to act. "The objective is, on the one hand, protect our borders; and, on the other hand, never lose sight of the thing that makes America unique which is, we're a land of immigrants and that we're not going to discriminate against people," he said at a news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Bush drew continued criticism from House Republicans for his speech, and the White House sought to emphasize the border security elements of the president's plan.

"This is going to be a tremendous enforcement support partnership," U.S. Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar told reporters at the White House, anticipating the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops to states along the Mexican border.

"We can certainly do what is asked by our commander in chief," added Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, National Guard Bureau Chief.

Blum, Aguilar and others stressed that National Guard forces would function in support roles, leaving front-line law enforcement against illegal immigrants in the hands of federal Border Patrol agents.

Republicans expressed support for new attempts to secure America's porous borders, but they rebelled against another element of what Bush calls a comprehensive plan to alter immigration laws.

"Thinly veiled attempts to promote amnesty cannot be tolerated,' said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga. "While America is a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws, and rewarding those who break our laws not only dishonors the hard work of those who came here legally but does nothing to fix our current situation."

Any legislation that emerges from Congress will eventually come from House-Senate negotiations.

But first, the Senate had to act, and there, Bush's speech won praise from Republicans and Democrats alike lining up behind long-stalled legislation.

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said he and other supporters had the support needed to defeat any crippling amendments offered by critics. Bush's speech "solidified some votes," he told reporters.

"The president gets it," added Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Behind the rhetorical lovefest lay political calculations — politicians of both parties stressing their election-year credentials as tough on illegal immigration in an era of terrorism.

Still, the impact on the Senate floor was to demonstrate support for legislation that combined several elements — toughening border control, creating a new guest worker program and opening the door to eventual citizenship for most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. The same bill includes provisions to toughen enforcement of laws against the hiring of illegal workers by businesses.

The centerpiece of Bush's speech Monday night from the Oval office was his announcement that as many as 6,000 National Guard troops would be dispatched, in coordination with governors, to states along the Mexican border to provide intelligence and surveillance support to Border Patrol agents. The Border Patrol would remain responsible for catching and detaining illegal immigrants.

"We do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that," the president said.

Still, Bush insisted, "The United States is not going to militarize the southern border."

While much of the advance focus on Bush's speech was on border security — a major issue for conservatives — the president's comments on possible citizenship for illegal immigrants were more explicit than earlier remarks and showed an effort to appeal to moderates and business owners who favor liberalized immigration laws.

"Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant, and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree," he said.

"It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; aliens; bill; bordersecurity; senatevote; senators; voteddown; wrangle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-197 last
To: SC Swamp Fox

See above--Graham voted against, Landrieu voted for. Ping the SC list?


181 posted on 05/16/2006 3:17:32 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Damn Norm,
Even Stabenow broke with Levin (for the first time ever?) to vote for this. One would think she's up for re-election or something.

From the President's speech last night...

And in Washington, the debate over immigration reform has reached a time of decision. Tonight, I will make it clear where I stand, and where I want to lead our country on this vital issue.

We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border and millions have stayed.

Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.

We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives.

First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers and terrorists.

I was the governor of a state that has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border, and how important it is. Since I became president, we have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult circumstances, and over the past five years, we have apprehended and sent home about 6 million people entering America illegally.

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors infrared cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

Training thousands of new Border Patrol agents and bringing the most advanced technology to the border will take time. Yet the need to secure our border is urgent. So I am announcing several immediate steps to strengthen border enforcement during this period of transition:

One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, respond to natural disasters, and help secure our border.

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities. So we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important resource and they are part of our strategy to secure our border communities.

The steps I have outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally. At the same time, we must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. But when we catch illegal immigrants from other countries, it is not as easy to send them home. For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called "catch and release," is unacceptable and we will end it.

We are taking several important steps to meet this goal. We have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more. We have expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we are making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions, we have ended "catch and release" for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end "catch and release" at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they will be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.


Many folks here claim that some others here will only accept an all or nothing approach, 100% of what they want, or if they don't get it, they'll get 0% and totally fold their hand for sitting out or considering a third party.
The President laid out a five step plan for dealing with this issue.
IMHO, most would settle for the President's fist step, which amounts to only 20%.

182 posted on 05/16/2006 3:20:03 PM PDT by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Any of these scum bags running should be voted out this year.

You forgot Norm Coleman. The man who was the Democrat mayor of my city before the RNC convinced him to become a RINO.

This Rinorat chairs the Senate investigations committee ( Joe McCarthy's old job ) and hasn't investigated one rat, traitor, leaker, domestic enemy while he has had the job during an era when the country is crawling with this scum.

I can't wait to throw the bum out.

183 posted on 05/16/2006 3:57:40 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

How about that loser from Utah, Bennett? Shelby was at least elected as a Democrat.


184 posted on 05/16/2006 4:02:23 PM PDT by Luke21 (It's looney. It's crazy. It's insane. It's liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Owen

"1) Amend the bill to say "Comprehensive Reform" is embraced and approved in terms of a temporary, 3 year guest worker program, and scheduled to begin no sooner than 6 years after the Border Patrol reports, under oath, that no more than 1,000 illegals from Mexico get across the border. That sort of thing would actually be acceptable to most. The 6 year gap would provide plenty of time for most illegals to self-deport. Those remaining have to get at the end of the line anyway under the GW program so . . . it should work with the long delay."

A much weaker version of this was voted down (sigh).


185 posted on 05/16/2006 4:11:40 PM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

No, I think what was voted down was an enforcement only bill that did NOT include details of the GW program. The verbage was enforcement "first" without laying out the GW program that comes later. I'm suggesting that we have to meet the President and his clearly strong feelings about this half way.

I'm saying put all the Guest Worker details in the bill, with strict controls. Embrace it and acknowledge that it will happen, but add the time delay of 5-6 years and a trigger for that timer being the Border Control declaring effective sealage.

I think that will fly and the base can support it. Anyone who jumps through all those hoops would make a fine American.


186 posted on 05/16/2006 4:53:50 PM PDT by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: michigander
The President laid out a five step plan for dealing with this issue. IMHO, most would settle for the President's fist step, which amounts to only 20%.

I'm willing to accept only 20%. Just a reasonable guy.
187 posted on 05/16/2006 5:28:47 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; All

One word: Insane.

Our "leadership" has gone deaf, or are even more shameful a bunch of sell-outs than even I have figured. They are so confident in the short memory factor, that they actually believe they can pull this crap and stay in office. IMO, that is the cause for all this phony urgency; get it overwith before October so the sheeple won't remember what they were so pissed off about in May.

This just adds credence to my long-held theory that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a (D) and an (R) when it comes down to doing what is right and what will line their pockets or increase their power.

Come November, we should turn the tables on this crowd of traitorous criminals, and send them all packing. We won't, though, because a good eighty percent of those that actually vote are either too friggin' stupid to realize the damage this kind of crap is causing this once-great country, or have been bribed-for-life with entitlements.

Our most precious birthright -- that of citizenship -- is being sold for less than thirty pieces of silver. I'd like G.W. Bush or any of these fine, upstanding senators to remember for just one minute all those thousands who have bled and died to protect this birthright before they so shamefully cheapen it forever.

Our enemies will revel in this defeat for America for centuries to come, and we can thank this administration and the current congress for pimping out the lot of us.


188 posted on 05/16/2006 5:38:32 PM PDT by thelastvirgil (Incumbent politicians: PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

What is the deal with Bennet? I thought Utah was conservative through and through???


189 posted on 05/16/2006 5:39:03 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; 2A Patriot; 2nd amendment mama; 4everontheRight; 77Jimmy; Abbeville Conservative; ...
DeMint - Yea
Graham - Nay

South Carolina Ping

Add me to the list. | Remove me from the list.

190 posted on 05/16/2006 7:11:05 PM PDT by SC Swamp Fox (Join our Folding@Home team (Team# 36120) keyword: folding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

What about the path to citizenship Bush favors for illegals makes it not "automatic"?


191 posted on 05/16/2006 7:13:03 PM PDT by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Probably not many illegals up there just yet.


192 posted on 05/16/2006 7:13:37 PM PDT by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Owen

What I was referring to as being voted down, today, was the Session amendment...

ALL it required was certification that the borders were secure and provisions of the bill regarding that implemented prior to the other provisions that expand legal immigration and give amnesty to current illegal immigrants.

Not very demanding, but considered a 'killer amendment' to the pro-amnesty crowd.

Your proposed time delay is even longer.

I think it's a good idea ... BUT ... it put people in a legal limbo to be 'illegal immigrants' yet 'ready for legalization later'.

I am convinced that we are actually BETTER OFF with illegal immigration status quo than with *any* amnesty. For many reasons: Govt welfare burdens, the 'chain migration' multiplier from amnesty, and the huge burden of andministration not to mention opportunity for fraud....

It's amazing that we are told we cannot do mass deportation, but we can do mass legalization of 8 million illegal immigrants. So why not let it be status quo? In other words, pass something like HR4437 now, and in 2 years revisit, with your idea in the back pocket. Besides, the 'anchor baby' amnesty will be there for those real long-term families who have roots for years and years.


193 posted on 05/16/2006 8:11:00 PM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: SC Swamp Fox

It seems like just yesterday when the country got to know Graham as an eager conservative who was aggressive and well spoken while pushing the Clinton impeachment.

Its been all down hill since............

I say call out the Red Cross for new blood is needed in SC!!


194 posted on 05/17/2006 9:04:58 AM PDT by Goodwillhntg (GW.... GODS WISDOM!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: mthom

the "path" is a litter strewn trail coming from MX to the US
. that's the "path to citizenship".

just follow the yellow brick road to amnesty.


195 posted on 05/17/2006 9:29:36 AM PDT by Rakkasan1 (lead ,follow or get out of the majority.start with our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Biblebelter
>> What is with Shelby from Alabama? <<

Shelby was a loyal lifelong RAT politician when the Alabama Dems suffered a wipe out in 1994 and Shelby read the writing on the wall and "joined" the GOP so his political career would survive.

He's an Republican by convenience and is not reliable like Sen. Sessions.

196 posted on 05/17/2006 6:36:15 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Judy Baar is Too-pinka! Vote Stufflebeam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
Good anaylsis except if Graham is a RINO with is 90% lifetime conservative rating and his legacy leading the fight to impeach Clinton, then most Republicans are "RINOs".

The non-RINOs who caved on this bill do need to get phone calls though. If we could flip 7 Republicans to support border security first and get the 4 "not voting" Republicans to get off their butt and support this, we'd have a majority.

Chafee, Specter, Collins, and Snowe are long time RINOs and a lost cause. Perhaps Hagel too.

The following Senators need to get phone calls: Bennett (R-UT), Brownback (R-KS), Coleman (R-MN) Craig (R-ID), DeWine (R-OH, UP FOR RE-ELECTION); Voinovich (R-OH); Graham (R-SC); Lugar (R-IN, UP FOR RE-ELECTION); Martinez (R-FL, LYING SELLOUT WHO CLAIMED HE WAS "AGAINST" AMNESTY TO WIN THE GOP PRIMARY); Shelby (R-AL); Stevens (R-AK); Murkowski (R-AK); Warner (R-VA); Gregg (R-NH); Cochran (R-MS); Lott UP FOR RE-ELECTION (R-MS); McCain (R-AZ, MIGHT RUN FOR PREZ?)

197 posted on 05/17/2006 6:46:56 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Judy Baar is Too-pinka! Vote Stufflebeam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-197 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson